I don’t know when things changed, or if it was just a California thing, but I always thought it was universally true that a felony conviction cost you your right to vote. Screw society enough to be a felon, and society politely asks you to sit in the corner and be quiet …
Well, I guess that’s neitehr as universal nor as uniform as I thought. Many states allow ex-cons to vote. Others reinstate voting rights once parole or probation are over. Some states even let those inside of prison vote. The idea is that by encouraging participation in society, by getting that buy-in, you may reduce crime.
It’s an interesting idea. I’m not sure how much I buy it, but it’s certainly worth debating.
On the other hand, why debate it when you can sue to have things your way?
The American Civil Liberties Union and several minority rights advocates filed suit yesterday, seeking to overturn a New Jersey law that prohibits convicted felons from voting after they have left prison and are serving terms of parole or probation.
“The purpose of the lawsuit is to expand democracy and expand voting rights,” said Prof. Frank Askin, director of the Rutgers Constitutional Litigation Clinic and one of the lawyers who prepared the suit. “Public policy favors reintegrating ex-offenders into society, including making them full participants in civic life. We don’t believe the state has any justification in denying these people the right to vote.”
What’s interesting here is that, though, is that while the suit is put forward as a civics debate on how best to “reintegrate ex-offenders” (to be established by judicial fiat), the suit’s arguments have nothing to do with that.
The suit contends that denial of voting rights to those on probation or parole violates the New Jersey Constitution’s provisions guaranteeing equal opportunities under the law. Mr. Askin said most parolees or probationers in New Jersey are black or Hispanic, in numbers that he said were disproportionate to the propensity of their racial groups to commit crimes. Consequently, Mr. Arkin said, black and Hispanic communities have been denied an equal opportunity to influence the electoral and political process.
He said 80 percent of the 15,000 ex-convicts now on parole in New Jersey and 60 percent of the 70,000 on probation are black or Hispanic.
In other words, law barring felons in prison or on parole or probation from voting isn’t wrong because of “public policy,” but because it’s The Man Keeping Us Down.
I note that the number of black or Hispanic folks being talked about here – about 50,000 — is a tiny fraction (less than 1%) of the total 7 million blacks or Hispanic adults in the state. That doesn’t mean it’s fair, or that it’s good public policy, but it’s hardly a significant impact on the black and Hispanic communities’ ability to “the electoral and political process.”
Again, it’s a public policy matter that can be debated. But trying to bypass that debate by making sweepingly overblown statements in support of a law suit is hardly a way to guarantee anyone’s “equal oppotunity to inluence the electoral and political process” — aside from anyone being able to sue to influence it.
I’ve always had an issue with excluding felons from voting because there’s absolutely no basis for such a penalty in the Constitution. Citizens vote. Period. Those who commit crimes receive a sentence and serve that sentence. Period. Exactly why is it deemed necessary to keep punishing a person AFTER he or she has served the time imposed by the court?
I have similar objections to all the restrictions put up around sex offenders. Not that I want sex offenders roaming around freely, but I have to ask: if a person continues to be treated as guilty after having been punished, isn’t this just sort of an extension of the punishment? Why not just keep the person in jail, if they’re considered too uncontrollable?
But back to the whole voting thing: just lay off these people. As we saw in Florida, it’s practically impossible to enforce felon-exclusion without screwing a bunch of other people, and the whole principle is dodgy at best. And who’s to say that a person can’t make an informed vote simply because he or she once committed a felony?
There’s a long tradition in English language that felons are basically outlaws — they have put themselves outside of the law and society. That translates here to provisions that reduce the rights that felons (or ex-felons) have. The idea is that, having basically kicked society in the balls by their serious crimes, society need not treat them as full members thereof.
(Of course, what consists of a felony has gotten so tweaked around through the War on Drugs that model has difficulties as well.)
Should restriction of rights continue after a sentence is finished? On the one hand, restrictions on weapons ownership (a 2nd Amendment right) for former violent offenders is not questioned by any but the most rabid anti-gun-control types. On the other hand, I’ve had a lot of misgivings over sex offender registries, as you’ve noted, and for the same reasons.
Outside of constitutional rights, former lawbreaking can have other significant effects. Employment is an obvious one — not only do we allow employers to inquire about and make judgment calls based on past criminal records, various jobs are simply not open by law and regulation to folks with such records.
The question is, perhaps, is it punishment of the offender, or societal protection? Yes, the two are tied together to some degree, but to what degree can we say, “Based on what this person has done, we need to restrict certain opportunties for the future.”
And let’s remember that punishment doesn’t, in its effects, end the day Luke walks out of stir. That’s X years lost from his life, which will always have repercussions on the rest of his days — X years of lack of income, lack of job training, isolation from society … the punishment does continue in its effects after the sentence is over.
Voting is a bit different. Is society in danger of how ex-felons will vote? Probably not. So, should we restrict it? Now that I’ve given the matter some thought, I’m not sure that we should. Not for practical reasons you describe (Florida), or for the current law suit’s goofy claims, but because I’m not sure what it accomplishes; if there’s not a good reason for a law, that’s a good reason not to have it.